classic_wowfandomcom-20200213-history
Classic WoW Wiki talk:Featured article/Articles
Category:Featured Articles This is the page for nominating articles for addition and removal from the featured articles list. Previous nomination discussions can be found on Talk:Main Page/FA/Previous nominations. Please add new nominations at the end of the page, and link the article in the title! Netherwing The article itself needs a bit of work, but I think it could be a good FA =) -- 22:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT) *'Oppose'. This article actually needs a lot of work. It doesn't have a bold title, it has capital letters where they shouldn't be, it doesn't have a picture but does cite one as a source (which by itself is already kinda weird) and lacks a lot of lore info. My three suggestions are: 1) wait until 2.1 comes out watch as more and more information on the Wing becomes available.. 2) improve the article and 3) please don't nominate articles for FA if they 'need a bit of work' (which is an understatement in this case). Featured articles should display WoWWiki's finest work, which this article really isn't (yet).' [[User:Apollozeus|''APΘLLΘ]](ZEUS)' 02:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT) *'Oppose''' Stressing what Apollo said: ...needs a lot of work. -- 03:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT) ::Changing my stance to neutral, as it doesn't hold any special importance above any other faction page. -- 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC) *'Comment' I've given Netherwing a big update, and merged in stuff from the nether drake article. It needs fleshing out, but should be a readale guide now. 22:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT) ** An update on this - the only problem is that too many red links makes this unusable atm. 13:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. Comprehensive and tidy - though could do with more of an introduction. 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC) *'Still opposing', but for a different reason. This article now encompasses an awesome guide, however there is no lore information at all. Can't someone dig through all the quest dialogs and come up with something decent?' [[User:Apollozeus|''AMBER]](RΘCK)' 08:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Teron Gorefiend This article might need a little clean up, but this is a great character with lots of lore behind him. He is the focus of (imo) the best BC quests, and he is boss in the newly released Black Temple. *'Oppose'. The article has no references, doesn't clarify why Gorefiend ended up in service of Illidan, has a section which contains only one sentence and lastly it has images that say "(before patch 2.1)", but doesn't clarify what the post-patch 2.1 situation is.' ''APΘLLΘ''(ZEUS)' 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC) * '''Comment'. Definately needs an overhaul, but could certainly be a future candidate. 05:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC) * Comment.It doesn't clarify what the post-patch 2.1 situation is? yes it does. Read the text of the last pic.-- 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Gem I am new to the whole FA thing. However I find this article well laid out, and extremely useful. I'm not sure exactly the qualifications required to become a FA, so I thought I would just nominate and see what others think 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC) *'Support'. Useful, useful, useful. Three hoorays for this article.' [[User:Apollozeus|''APΘLLΘ]](ZEUS)' 05:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC) *'Oppose''' Useful... and not much else. It's more of a link farm than anything that could possibly be improved, except with the addition of more gems, or a patch changing the existing ones. -- 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC) *'Comment' - note that this page is already linked on the sidebar. 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC) What Wrath of the Lich King is NOT Feedback? :P -- 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC) *'Support' - I am very amused. It's definitely different from the sort of articles I've seen here before, but seems pertinent to the immediate post-BlizzCon 07 WoW fan environment. -- 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC) *'Oppose': - Fanfic, silly, and speculation articles do not belong as featured articles, regardless of quality.-- 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC) *'Comment' - I like it, but I worry that it could become a focus for vandalism. 20:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC) *'Oppose': Per Sandwich. -- 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC) *'Support': Many People Blaming this Game Sucks Its a fun artical and its NOT Vamdalism Dragonnagaofthewater 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC) *'Comment' - He did not say it WAS vandalism, he said because it has no factual grounding it could easialy BE vandalized. -- 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC) *'Comment' - Ok But it Can be become a focus on Vandalism but we dont know yet because it isn`t featured Yet. Human The article has a good length, information, and screenshots (though missing a WoW race shot). 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Tauren Less well known info for many, Taunka link renews interest. Tribes need broken link work though. 20:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Night elf Lots of info, well laid out. Could do with one or two extra screenshots though. 20:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Death Knight (hero class) Though most of it is still speculation (and will be until someone gets to the point to make one), there seems to be a lot about the Death Knight (that will be) in-game. I think this is the biggest piece of info since the announcement of Outland and the new races - everyone seems to be talking (and debating) a lot about what to expect...so why not put it on the front page, eh? --Joshmaul 07:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) :Oppose Just not good enough yet by the fact that we have nearly nothing on it; how runes work, what the other spells will be, etc. Iirc, it already is featured on the front page in the news box, just not in the FA box. -- 01:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC) :Oppose It seems that, at this point, a lot of information about this new hero class is still in speculation rather than fact. It would be great if there are solid info present. Maybe some time in the future when there are more confirmed information - Constarcy, US: Fenris 2:30PM Aug/28/2007 Siege weapon There have been worse suggestions. It is coming in WotLK. It is one of my favorite topics and I wrote most of it. Who does not like siege?-- 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) * Oppose. There is not enough in-game info, maybe it will be good enough when the expantion comes out and you know for sure about them and how they are played. It is too much of a bullet-pointed list, too.-- 20:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) * What the fuck? You propose an article, only to oppose its nomination afterwards? I don't get it. Oh, and yeah; naturally I opposse because this article is not elaborate enough.' [[User:Apollozeus|''AMBER]](RΘCK)' 09:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) *'Temporery Oppose''' :Just not Enough Game Info lets wait until it comes out K? Dragonnagaofthewater 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Roleplaying Age Roleplaying age - It'd help alot of roleplayers figuring out there Age, Weight and Height for other Races -- Chaosweaver 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Dragonflight Why not?They are neutral and have good lore--FireMaster 14:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)